| Title |
Bone loss following knee arthroplasty: potential treatment options
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00402-014-1941-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michele Vasso, Philippe Beaufils, Simone Cerciello, Alfredo Schiavone Panni |
| Abstract |
The management of bone loss is a crucial aspect of the revision knee arthroplasty. Bone loss can hinder the correct positioning and alignment of the prosthetic components, and can prevent the achievement of a stable bone-implant interface. There is still controversy regarding the optimal management of knee periprosthetic bone loss, especially in large defects for which structural grafts, metal or tantalum augments, tantalum cones, porous metaphyseal sleeves, and special prostheses have been advocated. The aim of this review was to analyze all possible causes of bone loss and the most advanced strategies for managing bony deficiency within the knee joint reconstruction. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Mexico | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 16% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Researcher | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 55% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 22 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 October 2014.
All research outputs
#7,855,444
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
#310
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,175
of 317,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
#7
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.